ROL NEWS--AeroTech Announces Certification of Three New Reload Kits

But there already exists a 29/100 casing that holds 2 hacked 29mm grains. And the loads for this motor were always less powerful and more expensive than similar loads for the 29/40-120.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow
Loading thread data ...

I had the 29/60 and 29/100 casings, but used them once each before the

29/40-120 came out. Never used either again, and ended up selling them to a collector. Each was s/n 003!

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Who in the NAR was asked? When were they asked? You never asked S&T, I would have known about it. If you really asked someone in authority in the NAR they should have passed it on to me. And you should know that any request as this should come to me.

Trying to change the subject? I have already answered this question, but I will answer it again for youi in a different thread.

Jack Kane

Reply to
Jack Kane

I agree that's a possibility. It doesn't seem likely though in light of their past actions and continuing statements declaring intent to regulate rocketry.

Who's asking them for a public statement?

Reply to
RayDunakin

And yours is to dodge the question, as usual.

Reply to
RayDunakin

The people who are saying "let's go ask the BATF if the exemption really applies to manufacturers of PAD's / to reloadable motors / etc.", that's who.

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

Jerry replied:

Prove it, Big Fine.

Well, we ARE discussing consumer motors, Jerry.

I already have.

Prove it.

And you simply deny the facts, without presenting a shred of evidence for doing so.

Reply to
RayDunakin

ie I offered to check with the ARF for Jerry if he wants me to. I'm sure he doesn't but. I just wanted to help.

How the PAD thing applies to manufacturers is what we were discussing.

Reply to
Phil Stein

So you feel AT was justified RELEASING RMS for general consumer sale while:

  1. There were still laws expressly forbidding metallic motors, including RMS specific systems made for the 18mm "traditional model rocket" market.
  2. The system was not DOT approved and would not be for years into the future. However Vulcan's was.
  3. There was no provision for cert much less certs.
  4. The people who developed reloadable systems BEFORE Gary (USR and Vulcan) were withholding releases pending the rule changes.

As you have seen, by jumping the gun Gary did indeed get market dominance, and apparantly from you a postfacto forgiveness for widespread lawviolations.

Hypocrite. See above. 2.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Avoiding a question which assumes facts not in evidence, or disproven, is appropriate. And characterizing it as spewing crap is accurate.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Stop rediscussing it. Manufacturers of PADS, all PADS are exempt. Period.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

This should be in the FAQ.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

"4. The people who developed reloadable systems BEFORE Gary (USR and Vulcan) were withholding releases pending the rule changes."

Seems almost funny that Skippy lost out for attempting to follow rules. Seems he lost his focus for the rules shortly after that.

Reply to
Chad L. Ellis

Prove it. Show me that every ingredient that goes into a PAD is exempt and that the mixture that geos into the PAD is exempt before it becomes a PAD.

Reply to
Phil Stein

:)

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Are you that confused Jerry???

"Your reply is so telling Jerry". To answer truthfully, would cause you to openly and knowingly admit your past criminal activity, involving manufacture and distribution of 1.3c, unclassified hazmat...

Fred

Reply to
W. E.Fred Wallace

So Jerry, are you back in the business of producing motors as exemt pads?? Come on Jerry, don't be a puss..(;-)

Fred

Fred

Reply to
W. E.Fred Wallace

You should know better than to believe his nonsense.

Not quite. In May 1991, he wrote an editorial for the Tripoli Report in which he proposed limiting model rocketry to "non-metallic motors", which would have prevented the use of AT reloadables. He also proposed separating metallic motors from "high power" rocketry, into a special "Amateur rocketry" classification.

Reply to
RayDunakin

It was a discussion of an EXISTING rule, not adding one.

Special?

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

All you have to do is look to your own local newsletter covering Ocotillo launches for 1990 where we demoed the Irvine reloadable.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.